Does either ML or AGE have an advantage when it comes to product and services? I know that ML has the "Total Merrill" wealth management system. Does AGE offer its clients a similar platform? Taking all this into consideration, should it matter to a new person when deciding which firm to join?

Merrill has the most comprehensive and diverse platform among the large wires... Not sure how AG stacks up, but a buddy who works there in the DC area is always complaining about the capabilities ( he came from Morgan Stanley)... As for whether the platform should factor in the decision- yes, it definately should, although culture, branch culture, etc, etc are all important as well..

Merrill has the most comprehensive and diverse platform among the large wires... Not sure how AG stacks up, but a buddy who works there in the DC area is always complaining about the capabilities ( he came from Morgan Stanley)... As for whether the platform should factor in the decision- yes, it definately should, although culture, branch culture, etc, etc are all important as well..

As is the thing that so many of the kids who read this don't seem to grasp, there is something called "The Offer" that may or may not actually occur.

If you are NOT yet in the industry you are not in a position to pick and choose where to go--you're damn lucky if any firm offers you a job and you damn well better take it.

The business has lowered its standard to the point that people whose resumes would not have even been considered are now getting job offers--but it's still not as easy as opening up the yellow pages and looking to see which firm is closest to your house.

You should apply to several firms, hope for interviews, and if you get a job offer take it.

Merrill has the most comprehensive and diverse platform among the large wires... Not sure how AG stacks up, but a buddy who works there in the DC area is always complaining about the capabilities ( he came from Morgan Stanley)... As for whether the platform should factor in the decision- yes, it definately should, although culture, branch culture, etc, etc are all important as well..

As is the thing that so many of the kids who read this don't seem to grasp, there is something called "The Offer" that may or may not actually occur.

If you are NOT yet in the industry you are not in a position to pick and choose where to go--you're damn lucky if any firm offers you a job and you damn well better take it.

The business has lowered its standard to the point that people whose resumes would not have even been considered are now getting job offers--but it's still not as easy as opening up the yellow pages and looking to see which firm is closest to your house.

You should apply to several firms, hope for interviews, and if you get a job offer take it.

Why do people insist on lengthy posts that don't address the subject of the thread??

Merrill has the most comprehensive and diverse platform among the large wires... Not sure how AG stacks up, but a buddy who works there in the DC area is always complaining about the capabilities ( he came from Morgan Stanley)... As for whether the platform should factor in the decision- yes, it definately should, although culture, branch culture, etc, etc are all important as well..

As is the thing that so many of the kids who read this don't seem to grasp, there is something called "The Offer" that may or may not actually occur.

If you are NOT yet in the industry you are not in a position to pick and choose where to go--you're damn lucky if any firm offers you a job and you damn well better take it.

The business has lowered its standard to the point that people whose resumes would not have even been considered are now getting job offers--but it's still not as easy as opening up the yellow pages and looking to see which firm is closest to your house.

You should apply to several firms, hope for interviews, and if you get a job offer take it.

Why do people insist on lengthy posts that don't address the subject of the thread??

You should do research before picking a firm. It does matter. All of the major firms are hiring right now and it is not difficult to get an offer. After many interviews and offers I chose Raymond James.

These are the things I considered:

-Quality of Management (10 years Forbes list Best Managed)

-Clients are #1. They mean it. No quotas and no in house funds. You only sell what is best for the advisor. Also "we treat our advisors like clients." They really do. Everyone at home office drops whatever they are doing when you call to help you because you are REVENUE.

-If you want, you can go indy and still be a RJ employee.

-Great research (numerous awards see Barron's article and Penn State study).

-The top guys are still advisors and still have books. It is my understanding that the top guys at AGE and Merrill were never even brokers.

-You own your book. From day one. If you leave, you take your book. If you leave before two years is up, you have to reimburse them for the training charges (somewhere around $25,000). But, most people don't leave.

How does that work? How can one be an employee while also being free of being an employee?

Could it be that you don't know what you're talking about?

[/quote]

Put, could it be that you've shown your ignorance again? Listen and learn. At RJ the "independent employee" model (called Advisor Select) allows you to gain most of the attributes of being an independent contractor, but you actually become an employee of RJ&A. As an employee you access all the RJ benefits, RJ handles HR responsibilities & payroll, and they also will take care of some admin duties like paying your expenses (still charged to your blotter though). There are some reps who don't want to take on all the responsibilities of being an independent contractor, so Advisor Select can be a viable option for those people instead of RJFS.